OK, forget that the proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage is regressive taxation that Democrats always claim to be against. Never mind that the income guidelines are so generous that this moves away from providing coverage for the poor and gets well into the middle class. At least listen to one small voice of common sense belonging to Rep. Jim McCrey, R-La., about the wisdom of funding the program with an increase in cigarette taxes:
"To propose funding a growing program with a declining revenue source is, I would submit, irresponsible fiscal policy," he said.
As the program grows, the increasing price of cigarettes will reduce the number of smokers and the amount of available revenue. Hello, non-smoking taxpayers!
Comments
I've saying that for years, after you force us all to quit, you'll have no more revenue, and then if we all live longer because you forced us to quit, we're going to cost everyone even more!
Careful what you wish for nannies, because you'll be paying the tab sooner than you think, and it's gonna be a BIG tab too!
Few Democrats care about regressive taxes-- as is obvious by their silence on payroll taxes-- a tax that imposes a larger burden than "income" taxes on more than 80% of wage-earners, including most of the lower and middle classes.
They'll just find somthing (or someONE) else to tax the hell out of....it's the old "circle of life" thing (governmental version).
;)
B.G.
They
The rich who DO have the wealth DO have a RESPONSIBILITY to contribute...trouble is, they(in many cases) simply DO NOT.
((I worked for the Treasury Dept...believe me...they don't.))
Doesn't get any more academic than that, does it?
B.G.